Holmberg v. Stealth Cam, LLC

Filing 199

ORDER. 1. Stealth Cam's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 126 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/6/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Larry Holmberg,

Civil No. 11-248 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Stealth Cam, LLC,
Defendant.
Defendant Stealth Cam, LLC (“Stealth Cam”) has requested that the Court
reconsider its July 15, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Claim Construction
Order”) (Doc. No. 87), insofar as the Court held that the term “extending parallel” was
not indefinite. (Doc. No. 126.) Plaintiff Larry Holmberg (“Holmberg”) opposes this
request. (Doc. No. 127.)
Under Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show “compelling circumstances” to obtain
permission to file a motion to reconsider. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). A motion to reconsider
should not be employed to relitigate old issues, but rather to “afford an opportunity for
relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dept. of
Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
Here, Stealth Cam points out that the Supreme Court issued a decision on June 2,
2014, in Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), holding that a
patent’s claims must, when viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,
“inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable

certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 2129. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision,
which Stealth Cam argues invokes a stricter standard for satisfying the definiteness
requirement than had been used by the Federal Circuit, Stealth Cam asserts that the term
“extending parallel” is indefinite. Thus, Stealth Cam requests that the Court either
reconsider its ruling that the term “extending parallel” is not indefinite and find that the
term is indefinite or, alternatively, allow the jury to determine the issue of definiteness.
In response, Holmberg asks the Court to maintain its original claim construction of the
term “extending parallel,” asserting that the Court applied a standard that is in accordance
with the ruling in Nautilus.
In its Claim Construction Order, the Court explained:
After a review of the claim language and intrinsic evidence, the
Court concludes that a reasonable meaning of “extending parallel” can be
ascertained, and that the term should be construed as “the mounting rail has
a longitudinal axis parallel to the central axis of the housing/camera body
and the primary (longitudinal) dimension of the mounting rail extends in
the primary (longitudinal) direction as the housing/camera body.”
(Doc. No. 87 at 24.) In determining that the term “extending parallel” was not indefinite,
the Court found that a “reasonable meaning” of the term could be ascertained. The Court
now concludes that the standard it applied in its Claims Construction Order is in
accordance with the standard articulated in Nautilus. Therefore, the Court will maintain
its original construction for “extending parallel” and denies Stealth Cam’s request that the
Court reconsider its Order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Stealth Cam’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc.

No. [126]) is DENIED.
Dated: November 6, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3